On May 19, 2005, at 5:08 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> My first reaction is that you have seriously misrepresented
> everyones positions. However, I don't have time right now to go
> into much detail, as I am still attempting to work on certification.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent. I have only been following
this at a medium level, and was personally overwhelmed by the
technical details, so this was partly for me :)
> I have attempted to be clear all along that I fully support keeping
> serialization and think that the arguments against it are way
> overblown. As such, depicting Jeremy as the sole holdout against
> the tide of xml-goodness is ludicrous.
Sorry, in the flood of emails, I forgot you were also saying we
should keep serialization. Again sorry.
> Also, my impression was that we had all agreed at the start that we
> would do our best to keep xml processing out of the runtime. I
> guess I should have had everyone sign up on this since it looks
> like fewer people remember this every day.
I am still against lots of xml processing, but I have changed my mind
about serizlization. I do not want to see xml tightly integrated
into any code, I rather see a marshalling layer that converts xml to
a nice java bean tree that represents a configuration. That way,
someone can start with just java code, property files, or whatever.
I think serialization is great for caching and rpc, but I don't like
it for long term storage or configuration information.
> I don't know many details about object serialization. I would like
> to see a concrete demonstration of problems with serializing a
> reasonable attribute value, such as a javabean or strategy object.
I think that is part of the big problem here. Too much talk not
enough code. I think we should get the advocates of a technique to
show the code for class upgrade.
-dain
|